161 F.

3d 19
98 CJ C.A.R. 4841
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
further order.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
Jesse SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 97-4101.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Sept. 11, 1998.

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and TACHA, Circuit Judges.

1ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

2

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without
oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Defendant Jesse Sandoval entered a plea of guilty to possession of a controlled

substance with intent to distribute, reserving the right to appeal the district
court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in a suitcase located in a
vehicle used to facilitate an illegal drug transaction. On appeal, defendant
argues that the arresting officers lacked probable cause to arrest him and his
suitcase was searched illegally. We affirm.

Based on information provided by a confidential informant, law enforcement

officers arranged to purchase a quantity of methamphetamine. The transaction
was arranged to take place in a motel in Ogden, Utah, on March 5, 1996. Two

vehicles and four or five persons were expected to deliver the drugs. At the
appointed time, defendant arrived in one of two vehicles traveling together.
While one of his companions went into the motel room, defendant and two
others stayed outside to keep watch. After the undercover officers in the motel
room showed the supplier the money for the methamphetamine and tested a
sample of the drug, he went back to the vehicles to get the rest of the
methamphetamine. Two suppliers returned to the motel room where they were
arrested. Word was sent to officers outside the motel to arrest the other
participants. Defendant tried to run away, but was arrested. Thereafter, the
officers impounded both vehicles and conducted an inventory search of the
vehicles and their contents, in accordance with the Ogden City Police
Department impound and inventory policy. During the inventory,
methamphetamine was discovered in a suitcase apparently belonging to
defendant.
5

Following an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge found that the officers
had probable cause to arrest defendant as an aider and abetter, defendant lacked
standing to challenge the impound of the vehicle, the government conceded
defendant's standing to challenge the search of the suitcase, and the official
impound policy permitted opening the suitcase located in the vehicle. The
magistrate judge recommended denying defendant's motion to suppress the
methamphetamine in the suitcase. The district court adopted the magistrate
judge's recommendation.

"In reviewing the district court's denial of a motion to suppress, we examine the
court's findings of fact for clear error, viewing all facts in the light most
favorable to the government, but review de novo the reasonableness of the
seizure and search." United States v. Haro-Salcedo, 107 F.3d 769, 771 (10th
Cir.1997). It is within the district court's province to evaluate witness
credibility, to decide what weight to give to the evidence, and to draw
reasonable inferences from the evidence. See United States v. Hunnicutt, 135
F.3d 1345, 1348 (10th Cir.1998).

Defendant claims the arresting officers lacked probable cause to arrest him
because he was merely present at the scene of a crime. He also challenges the
inventory search of his suitcase located in the vehicle, claiming that because the
officers did not have probable cause to arrest him, the vehicle should not have
been impounded and subsequently subjected to an inventory search.

A warrantless arrest for a felony normally is permissible as long as the

arresting officer has probable cause. The proper probable cause inquiry asks
whether at the time of the arrest the facts and circumstances within the officers'

knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were

sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the arrestee had committed
or was committing an offense. Probable cause can rest upon the collective
knowledge of the police, rather than solely on that of the officer who actually
makes the arrest.
9

United States v. Klein, 93 F.3d 698, 701 (10th Cir.1996) (quotations and
citations omitted).

10

After carefully reviewing the record, we hold that the authorities had probable
cause to arrest defendant. He had arrived at the motel with the person who
carried the drugs into the motel room, he had conferred and congregated with
the other participants in the drug transaction, he had conducted countersurveillance to facilitate the illegal transaction, and he had attempted to run
away from the scene when police officers made themselves known.
Defendant's actions demonstrated that he had willfully "associate[d] himself
with the criminal venture and [sought] to make it succeed through some action
on his part." United States v. McKneely, 69 F.3d 1067, 1072 (10th Cir.1995)
(quoting United States v. Esparsen, 930 F.2d 1461, 1470 (10th Cir.1991)).
Defendant's conduct was sufficient for a prudent officer to believe that he was
aiding and abetting the illegal drug transaction. See id.

11

Defendant next argues that the search of the suitcase without a warrant violated
his Fourth Amendment rights. The government conceded that defendant had
standing to challenge the search of the suitcase, but argued that the search was
a proper inventory search.

12

"An inventory search is a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of

the Fourth Amendment, designed to effect three purposes: protection of the
owner's property, protection of the police against claims of lost or stolen
property, and protection of the police from potential danger." Haro-Salcedo,
107 F.3d at 772 (citations omitted). To be reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment, an inventory search must be conducted according to standardized
procedures. See id. Police officers may search closed containers in an
impounded vehicle pursuant to sufficiently regulated inventory procedures. See
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 374-75, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739
(1987).

13

The official inventory search procedure in his case required that all closed
containers located in an impounded vehicle be opened. We conclude that the
procedure was sufficiently standardized and regulated to meet constitutional

requirements. Accordingly, the inventory search of defendant's suitcase did not

violate the Fourth Amendment.
14

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah is
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally
disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and
judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3